CompatHelper: bump compat for LogDensityProblems to 0.11 for package regression-1d, (keep existing compat)

[github-actions]

This pull request changes the compat entry for the LogDensityProblems package from 0.10 to 0.10, 0.11 for package regression-1d.
This keeps the compat entries for earlier versions.

Note: I have not tested your package with this new compat entry.
It is your responsibility to make sure that your package tests pass before you merge this pull request.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #206 (9c4cdbd) into master (b5a53b5) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #206   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.03%   98.03%           
=======================================
  Files          10       10           
  Lines         356      356           
=======================================
  Hits          349      349           
  Misses          7        7           

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b5a53b5...9c4cdbd. Read the comment docs.

[devmotion]

@cscherrer It seems some recent changes of Soss/MeasureTheory broke the tests: https://github.com/JuliaGaussianProcesses/AbstractGPs.jl/pull/206/checks?check_run_id=3858536599#step:6:962 and https://github.com/JuliaGaussianProcesses/AbstractGPs.jl/pull/206/checks?check_run_id=3858536599#step:6:1068. Tests passed on the master branch two weeks ago. Maybe it's related to cscherrer/Soss.jl#305?

[cscherrer]

Thanks @devmotion for letting me know! I didn't know this had a dependency on MeasureTheory. We should add it to the Breakage CI.

It might be related to the Soss issue, I'll check into that.

[devmotion]

I didn't know this had a dependency on MeasureTheory.

AbstractGPs you mean? It doesn't depend on MeasureTheory, we just run tests with GPs inside of Turing and Soss models to check the use of AbstractGPs with different PPLs in a separate test environment, outside of the regular CI. We separated these tests to avoid that compat issues in Turing or Soss break our CI tests, and these tests are allowed to fail (so there's no pressure from our side here).

[devmotion]

@cscherrer I just reran the tests and they still fail, even with the latest Soss release. So unfortunately it seems the problem was not completely identical to the Soss issue that you fixed in 0.20.8.

[cscherrer]

Thanks @devmotion . I think the next step is to get a MWE (MBE?) into the Soss tests, that will make it easier to fix and avoid re-breaking